With the beginning of the Sandusky trial, the rhetoric-fest also begins. The outrage expressed months ago, when the story broke, now expresses itself again, often with an emphasis on the pathetic obsession with football in Happy Valley.
They’re pointing the same thing out about pathetic Auburn: “The shooting has shaken Auburn, a city of 53,000 that revolves around the football team.”
You’d never know there were universities in these locations.
[I]f all this is true, Sandusky was allowed to operate for years because other men decided there was something more important than innocent children.
Football.
Indeed in what way can it be said that universities, as we understand them, are at these locations? These are places where people are driven by blind fanaticism toward patently unworthy objects. It’s hard to get farther from the ethos of the university.
June 13th, 2012 at 11:17AM
I’d argue that Penn State differs up to a point from some other football-obsessed schools, in a revealing way. At Penn State, football success did in fact play a significant part in building the reputation (including the academic reputation) of the university. But because football came to be seen as untouchable, above the law, the whole thing blew up. Institutionally, this is a failure not necessarily of strategy but certainly of risk management: if you’re going to hang a large part of your reputation on football, you have to hold football to a high standard of behavior. It’s tough to do this and win, as Notre Dame has found.
June 13th, 2012 at 12:23PM
All good points, Mr Punch.
June 13th, 2012 at 4:21PM
I don’t object to the idea that those directly involved in these events placed greater value on protecting football and other interests above those kids. And, I don’t object to the idea that they were influenced by the power and money of the football program.
But, let’s not lose sight of two important things. First, it was those individuals who acted or failed to act who made that choice. It was not the fans or the students or the faculty. Many are tempted by money and power every day in many ways, yet do not act in this way. Blaming football (or fans or alumni) diverts attention from those who truly acted unethically and immorally.
Second, the implication that the 500,000+ Penn State alumni, students, faculty and staff, as well as those living in the area are “driven by blind fanaticism toward patently unworthy objects” paints with far too broad a brush. At Penn State and many of these other places there are plenty of people engaged every day in “the ethos of the university”, just as there are people at GW and elsewhere engaged in blind fanaticism of one type or another other than football. Labeling with such broad strokes is nothing more than another form of blind fanaticism.
June 13th, 2012 at 5:43PM
GTWMA: I think your comment misses the fact that “those individuals” were essentially the highest powers of the university, from the president on down. How does a university fall so low as to produce such a leadership?
It’s obvious on the face of it that there are plenty of decent people at Penn State. What anyone seeking to defend the institution has to reckon with is that it rotted from the head down for years, and none of those decent people appear to have done anything about it, although documents arising in court suggest that quite a few people knew about Sandusky’s crimes.
Anyone seeking to defend the institution has to reckon with the fact that even after the facts of cover-up and dissolute neglect were known, many of Penn State’s students rioted in rage against the people seeking to expose and respond morally and legally to this.
Plenty of people are now calling for the football program at Penn State to be shut down for some time. Plenty are calling for the entire board of trustees to be thrown out. These seem to me reasonable ideas. I don’t think they suggest fanaticism. They suggest that serious people have concluded that Penn State is a fundamentally troubled institution and should be called such.
June 13th, 2012 at 8:03PM
And isn’t the delayed timing of the investigation and indictment suspicious as well, suggesting that feet were dragging even as the scandal became inevitable in order to secure some sort of football record?
June 17th, 2012 at 7:51AM
No, UD, “many” Penn State students did not riot in rage. The estimate of the crowd that night ranges from 1,500 to 4,000, or less than 10% of the total student body at University Park, and less than 5% of the total Penn State student body. And even as they were rioting, other students had already started organizing and planning a candlelight vigil for the victims that drew a crowd that was estimated to be 5-10 times larger than the riot crowd when held the following Friday. I walked the campus and talked with many students, friends, and neighbors during the weeks following, and their reactions were as diverse and thoughtful as those not in State College. No, I’ll amend that. Their reactions were far more diverse and thoughtful than the smug self-righteousness that passed for thought outside of State College and Penn State.
The leadership at Penn State has been as complex as at most other major research universities, filled with spectacular accomplishments, and many failures, none so deep as this. I fully support a complete investigation and the removal and prosecution of those who participated in these events.
But, humanity is far more complex than UD portrays it when she gets off on one of her screeds. Documents in court, so far, show that 8 people at the university knew something–the 4 leaders, McQueary, a police officer, and the janitors. They also show even more people outside the university knew, including, among others, a physician’s assistant/practice manager, a lawyer, a businessman, a doctor, a child and youth services investigator, a DA, a few of the victims’ family members, and the former AG and current Governor of Pennsylvania and the single state trooper he had investigating these events while he collected campaign funds from Second Mile and Paterno (less than 2 weeks after he was elected, his new AG began a serious investigation).
A person of reasonable intellect understands the multiple motivations that arise in this case, as in all child sexual abuse cases, from the power and money, to the shock and horror at trying to contemplate such events, making denial and blindness too often the case.
The simple story is comforting in its ability to allow those outside to remain smug and self-righteous. The complex one makes us look at ourselves, our neighbors, our institutions, and our communities with greater care.